PSX Extreme

Site Stats

How Would PlayStation Fans React To An "Always-On" Console?

This question is interesting because in truth, PlayStation and Xbox fans differ in a number of ways. I'm not saying they're two different species of gamers, but those who are loyal to either side tend to have different views of the industry.

So I'm wondering what the PlayStation followers would think if the PS4 had been an "always-on" system; i.e., it has to be connected to the Internet if you want to play games, even if they're offline adventures. The reason I ask is because according to leaked information concerning the new Xbox (code-named "Durango"), it will indeed be an "always-on" machine and it'll even be equipped with a new high-fidelity Kinect Sensor that will also "be required for the system to operate."

Microsoft is saying this is a way to ensure that "software games are always current," but others are viewing this as a way for the corporation to invade our privacy. It's this part of the leak that hit me right between the eyes:

"Durango would require a permanent internet connection. Yes, if you want to play a single adventure, you would have to be online. Whatever you will play, you must be online. Take the time machine and come back 3 years ago to erase the responsible person."

Honestly, if a video game machine had to be hooked up online just to function, I'd be pissed. If all consoles were like that, I'd probably stop gaming; that's how much I despise the idea. But maybe I'm in the minority on this, so that's why I'm asking...

Comments (68 posts)

I'm having hard time believing this will actually be the case but seeing that it's MS who knows? Now I expect they'll do something similar to how the Xbox 360 does things now. For example, on my first 360 I downloaded Outrun. It could play offline or online because the game was originally purchased on that physical hardware. But when I got my second 360 the game REQUIRES that it's online in order to play more than just the trial sized portion of the game.

Anyway, this isn't the sort of thing I'd be excited about. Even PC's with all of their massive levels of pirating don't require always online connections from services like Steam.

You can transfer "ownership" to the new console. It's because of the way M$ set things up. All purchases are linked to the mainboard of the 360 they're bought from as well as tied to your account. I had to transfer everything using their special transfer service after my first system bricked itself. It's a pain, but still better than the Wii.Last edited by Strythe on 3/24/2013 4:47:10 PM

I have broadband cable internet, so technically, internet is always accessible by anyone in the house with a device that has the password for my router. So I guess whenever I'm home, I'm constantly connected via my phone. In that sense, it's not such a big deal.

What is a big deal, however, is the thought that you couldn't play a game when the internet goes down. Mine is pretty freakin' reliable, but there are the occasional time something happens. Suppose it's a hardware malfunction on my end, like if the router burns out... if it's so late I can't run out, what with a kid in bed and all... I shouldn't be disallowed from playing a game if that's what I'm in the mood for.

I mean, I like reading and all... but I hate reading because I have to. lolLast edited by Underdog15 on 3/23/2013 12:12:10 PM

Remember, we're not talking about any old connection to the Internet. This is talking about being connected at all times to the Sony/Microsoft server system for functionality.

Think of the times you turn on your PS3, and PSN is "down for maintenance." Think of the month-long PSN outage. Think of what happens when the servers eventually get turned off for good. THAT is what Always Online means: Not being able to play when it becomes inconvenient for the publishers.

Don't forget to think about the individual game publishers and if THEY wanted to add in there that you have to be connected to THEIR servers... Just think of the sh*t storm THAT would cuase if either servers experienced problems (Take a look at the debacle w/ the SimCity EA servers that happened just a couple weeks ago)...

I think Sony knows that would be a bad thing. Granted they may get pressure from the devs/publishers, but I believe they know the final say or reaction would be from the consumers... dare I say gamers. And if the gaming says no then Sony and the devs/publishers suffer.

If the majority of gamers are fine with this along with devs, I guess thats what would happen, democratically. Is it s good business model... ugh one way to find out.

I realize being connected in this day and age may not be a big issue for most, maybe its not, but whats next? Each game disc has a distinct encrypted id burned on it and we need to go online to register it to play it on the id'd console. Wait.... I might prefer that maybe.

Whats the solution for the pirated or used copy whoas? It can't be this. There has to be something better.

To be honest it would not matter much for me at home, cause there the PS is always hooked up anyway. It simply would make no difference.

However, I got a holiday resort where my fatty resides, and that place has no internet connection. So this would then in practise mean no PS4 ever at that place. And that would be... Unfortunate. But no crisis. After all we're supposed to do other stuff those few weeks a year we are over there, than to sit in front of the TV.

So yeah, that's where you find me. I'd call it inconvenient, impractical, but not much more than that.Last edited by Beamboom on 3/23/2013 1:45:05 PM

Anybody remember when Circuit City tried this with their DIVX DVD players in 1997-1998? The machine had to be always connected or your cheaper priced dvd would become a coaster unless you paid to unlock the full disc.

I'm sure I've now forgotten a lot of the specifics of that format but it failed, spectacularly! That singlehandedly ruined Circuit City. Now I realize people are more accepting of being always connected today compared to 1997, but the idea of being monitored, and the idea of being unable to use your device when the internet is down, will still be major turnoffs for people who pay attention to this crap.

Even though my PS3 is always connected to my router, it doesn't mean it's always connected to the PSN (or whatever the it' called now). I won't buy the few single player games that came out with always online DRM. I would go full retro gamer if the PS4 and future consoles required a constant connection to PSN/LIVE/NintendoOnline.Last edited by touchyourtoes on 3/23/2013 12:58:45 PM

I generally try to be understanding of stuff publishers do, even if I don't necessarily like it, but this is just too much. Shit like this kept me from getting Diablo 3 and Sim City and it would keep me from getting a new console too. With the obvious exception of MMOs, games (or consoles) simply have no reason to require connectivity.

Ever play your PS3 when you DIDN'T have internet connection or weren't connected to PSN? Did you play your PS3 during that MONTH that Sony had to shut down the PSN due to that attack from hackers? Imagine not being able to play that brand new game you've been drooling over just because some jackass hacker decided it would be funny to attack PSN or Xbox Live or (what ever Nintendo's online server is called)...

Don't sit back and accept just because "I'm already always connect", that only leads to companies moving onto the next agenda on their list on how to make more profit out of consumers... Most people refer to this as a "slippery slope".

It just doesn't make any sense so PS fans wouldn't like it. We know the PS4 won't go this way, it would destroy their new vision of simplicity. You can't be having your games kick you out of an SP campaign because your internet went down for a second.

At this point it's all rumor and speculation. I wouldn't put too much stock in any of this until Microsoft actually comes out and confirms it.They may do boneheaded things on occasion, but I can't see them granting their major competitor that much of an advantage. If devs/publishers/hardware makers are paying attention at all, then they have to realize that their customers are just about at their breaking point.

I don't think some of you are really understanding this. Just because your PS3 is hooked up all the time and you expect your PS4 to be as well doesn't really mean anything. At least if it wasn't, you could still USE it.

This information says that if you don't have an Internet connection, you can't even use the machine to play video games. So if your cable or DSL or whatever got knocked out, you can't do anything. It's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. It's not merely inconvenient, it's stupid.Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 3/23/2013 3:16:42 PM

If Diablo III and Simcity have taught us anything, it's that an always online requirement doesn't work. Not allowing even the option for offline play just generates a lot of ill-will and confusion when the servers inevitably go down or your internet hiccups. Not only that, but roughly a quarter of current console owners don't even have their boxes connected. That's a lot of money to leave on the table.Last edited by Kryten1029a on 3/23/2013 3:28:14 PM

We do understand it Ben (I assume youre including me in that "some of you are not understanding" etc), we're just saying that it doesn't really matter because fact of the matter is that where I live the internet is as stable as electricity. The ps4 will indeed always be online just cause I can't be bothered with taking it offline.

It's not that I'm *for* it, it's just that it really does not matter much for me personally.

What matters though, is the solution. Especially Sim City is an example of a very bad solution. It's like shipping a game that is broken on the disc.But this is a software discussion. There are tons of examples of games with an online requirement that *do* work well, and has always done so. So this is not the "always on" requirement in itself, but the software design.Last edited by Beamboom on 3/23/2013 4:39:41 PM

I want to make an addendum to the comment above, after I read the comment from ProfPlayStation as a reply to Underdog further up. Cause this functionality will of course be dependent on Sonys PSN network being up and running too. And *that* adds to the inconvenience factor plentyfolds.I agree.

Although I don't personally mind sharing my gaming habits with Sony or whoever, it is an argument I can understand and relate to. I do get that many are very uncomfortable with sharing almost *any* info about themselves, and it is in their every right to be so. I understand and respect that.

But isn't that spying already here with the trophies and PSN? As long as you ever connect to PSN every once in a while they will receive a dump of data about the trophies you achieved while being offline, they got your shopping history in the store and whenever you are connected to PSN they receive a message the second you start a game, enter Home, or whatever. And that's only the data we are aware of. What else is tracked?

So as far as I am concerned I don't really see an "always on" requirement as that huge a step from what we already have got, "spy-wise". And if the PS today are set to automatically connect to PSN when they start up - and let's be frank here, most of us do - then I don't see much practical difference at all, other than the requirement in itself.Last edited by Beamboom on 3/24/2013 2:05:02 AM

I seem to remember a story about a hacker finding a way to use the Kinect to "spy" on people, not sure if it was true or just a story made up but I'm pretty sure it is at least a possibility, I personally don't want ANYONE watching me...

Beamboom, stop and think about this for a second; so your console has to ALWAYS be connect to PSN/XBL/Nintendo, not that big of a deal right slightly inconvenient but what-ever right? Now throw in HAVING to be connected to EA's servers because you're playing an EA game. Now imagine if EITHER of those servers are down for what ever reason (mainenance, hackers, what-ever) and you can't play your game. Oh, throw in the need already for having to be connected to the internet, THAT service NEVER has anything happen to it right? Right... You're "we all ready connect anyways" attitude is just the attitude most companies look for when they want to come up w/ ways to milk more money out of the consumers.

For me the inconveniences build up quickly. I just lived through the debacle w/ the SimCity servers, I wouldn't want to have to go through THAT again for every(bit hyperbole I know) game I buy.

Unfortunately far far too many out there are what I call Sheepole, they just go along w/ what ever because it's "just easier" to go along w/ it instead of standing up and saying they aren't going to do it, just look at how much micro&soft makes off of Xbox gold or what ever it's called... The next step is see from "always on-line/connected" is "HAVING TO pay for that connection", I already pay for internet I'm not going to pay MORE to play the video game I just payed $60 for.

Ben,You rightly raise the issue of spying with this tech. If we are required to have the new ps eye on to use the console, I am not happy. I heard this is going to be the case with the 720. Correct me if I'm wrong on that account. We are openining, rather we have opened Pandora's Box. We can still close it but I think the masses are not conscious enough/informed to not accept this with open arms. Look at what Verizon recently patented. Its should raise our concerns.

Let's all keep in mind that hackers already do use webcams and microphones to watch people on computers.Last edited by JoebooSauce on 3/24/2013 7:38:13 PM

Caanimal,I already said I agree with that, I even mention Sim City myself in one of the earlier comments here. I consider the dependence on uptime on several networks is the *real* downside here.

But when it comes to "milking" - if you were against milking I'd much rather focus my aggression on everything from the DLC and micro-transactions to the very Plus club itself - now *that* is milking.

Joeboosauce,I don't believe for one second that either Sony or Microsoft will have a requirement to keep a webcam running on the console to use it. That just SO stinks like an urban legend, a complete hoax.

come now... that's never even hinted at in the documentation... "Always On" ... the Wii is technicly "Always On" if you turn on it's update settings and your phone is always on. There isn't anything on there that sudjest that you need a connection to play you disc based games.

"Always-Online" is where I leave the party and go full retro. I have no intention of participating in $60 rentals, that stop working any time the game network is down (anyone remember the month-long PSN outage?), will likely be locked to a single account, and will be nothing but coffee coasters once the generation ends and the plug is pulled. This setup offers NO benefit for the paying customer.

Nothing about PS4/720 is appealing to me at this point, and this Always Online component is the dog turd right in the middle of it all. This is what will kill the industry. It's nothing but unbridled publisher greed, the same as it was in the 80s. When your industry stops looking after the interests of the customer, that is a dying industry, waiting to be buried.

I think for one thing it's how viable is this so called "leaked Information" to begin with? When Microsoft has something official to say,then we will know for sure. I can have my consoles (ps3 and xbox, I own both) be always connected to the internet so no problem there. But, I think it's a bad idea if Microsoft requires always connected because what competitive advantage does it give Microsoft? Could they be that stupid to turn away business? How does that "alleged" concept make them money or save money? Then there is the other juicy rumor about Microsoft not allowing used games to be played on their upcoming machine. I am surprised they haven't setup their own 2 hour press conference in April (maybe they will) to state what they have. Cannot wait for E3 to get here. I still plan on getting a Ps4 at some point but the Durango is wait and see, not a requirement.

If microsofts machine goes this route its because they can secure even more profit from their loyal fans. I know a a lot of people who have 360' are already online but their is a portion that dont for numerous reasons. Now Microsoft can guarantee they are purchasing live, which equals more revenue.

Personally I dont see the point in having a system thatdis always online, at all. It would benefit MS who has a payed subscription but otherwise Im not sure I get the logic. Maybe someone could explain?

Anyways its just a dumb idea. Their isnt enough broadband availability to do this to consumers.Last edited by bigrailer19 on 3/23/2013 9:46:13 PM

... Wait. No, this is genius! Microsoft, you should totally force your next console to be always connected. It'll like, enhance the experience... or something... yeah. Those fools over at Sony won't know what hit'em ;)

I don't have a link, but Sony were asked straight about this, and they replied it would be playable offline. This is a big issue for me, as I'm vehemently against always-on required. We should be able to rest easy for PS4, not so sure about the next Xbox, but this Xbox hasn't been so flash (it hasn't been bad, but Halo and Fable 2 are the only reasons why I'd have bothered with it - the other exclusives it has - given I can play on PC as well - aren't enough for me), don't think I'll bother with the next.

Actually I find the new SimCity quite enjoyable(althrough there are issues I'm not happy with), I currently have about 110 hours played on it, 12 or 13 of which was prior to the server crash even. While it has created issues and upset a LOT of people, I KNEW going in that the game was going to require being connected in order to play and some of the issues that might arise(and did), but that is kind of the whole idea behind how they set this one up, to be more about social play as apposed to the old "sit down and play w/ yourself" style of the old SimCity games. As for how well they are doing, well the last report about the game I read has them at over 1.1 million copies sold, and that's from earlier this week... Not too shabby if you ask me.

The point is *why force people?* Online could have been optionnal. When you are on the go and don't have internet access. You can play Solo in another region. Multiplayer in this game is totally unnecessary. It is fun to watch your friend's city but all in all it does not add any gameplay factor except for the fact that you and your buddies now have to plan ahead a little.

Some dev spoke out about how easy it would have been to have offline.

EA actually had to say sorry and give 50$ games to everyone who bought the game in the first few days lol

It was such a fail launch they fired the president XD

Anyway I find this whole *always online on so we can please the investors* crap really annoying. They remove features but keep charging the same price...

I'm assuming that M$ is attempting to placate their developers and provide them a way to combat piracy as is the case with EA and SC5, except, with the failure of Sim City 5 and the surrounding publicity they will lose far more from loss of sales than they will save in losses from piracy. To go the 'always on' route is absolute lunacy and I for one do not support the idea of this for the many reasons already stated; router crashes, cable outages, and lest we forget the push for cable companies to possibly try and change pricing structures and force consumers into data packages. M$ with this possible move and the rumored attempt to prevent the use of used/rented games is just poor business and just plain anti-consumer.

its no doubt im not contributing to the next gen if either Sony Microsoft or whatever consoles require always online with a camera watching...... if gaming been present for the number of decades & never required the net for interaction why all of a sudden now HAH.... the idea of purchasing my product & still being tied to enjoy the function knowing any given time my net or their server has faults & interupts is disturbing....... then i must allow folks on other side the opportunity to view my surrounding & company.... without my permision...... not knowing the identity of those watching.....

exactly how everyone else would react, obviously!this is bubcus though, i mean hows M$ going to do maintenance on the servers if millions of people are going to be connected to them?oh sorry you cant use the system you paid 500+ bucks for tonight because were doing maintenance?yea, thats going to go down well......im sure this has been misinterpreted.maybe every game requires a online connection at first just so it can be activated and tied to your account.but not always online, ie no connection no play.

what's the difference between PS and M$ fans? ethics, as Microsoft has no ethics, they'll bury human feelings under millions of dollars and the fans are just the same, just win and despise the loser, they can't even see reality where M$ only has 3 exclusive games and they paid insane amounts of money for them, it's not the deveopers's choice because of the brand or technology, it's just (dirty) moneyAnd about the "always on" thing? If a company has to use this thing it only proves they're failing at security, and even more failing as software company (which we alredy knew as Windows is pathetic).But the point is the "always on" isn't there only for security, but to spy on you to send you ads and ads and ads until you die.

I'm w/ you Ben, if every console HAD to be on-line to even function I would stop playing, or at least fall back on older systems and clean up some of the back logged video games I currently have...

IF they actually did go through w/ it I would predict that it would be the death of the console/company, from my experiences playing the new SimCity and reading several different forums (it's a wonderful game BTW, gives that old SimCity experience even through the bug I personally have experienced), many people wouldn't stand for an on-line always console.

It's not just people in developing countries. 14.5 million Americans in rural areas don't have access to broadband and how many are limited to option like Hughesnet that don't play well at all with XBL or PSN? Always-on is a non-starter and it won't benefit publishers and developers nearly as much as they think it will, but that won't stop them from cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I can see how the next xbox might be an "always on system" because of some of the features but I personally don't like the idea. I usually don't use the internet with my systems except to update my PS3 and occasionally to download some extra content that came with a newly bought game. Also with my way of life (military spouse), I don't always have access to a good internet connection so it becomes tiresome to try to connect my computer to the internet to even check emails let alone trying got keep a console connected too. I understand needing the internet for certain things but I don't feel it would ever be needed to have a console connected all the time.

Absolutely stupid. Then again, they give us trophies/achievements in exchange for spying on us already. That next step is a big one and all that will come of it is me saving money by not buying into it.

Next thing they'll want is your social security number and blood type to go with a retinal scanner that unlocks your game for only as long as you can go without blinking.

An always-on connection is a terrible idea. If this was an online-game machine only, then sure. But, last I heard there are plenty of offline games that M$ and Sony will be having on their new consoles. This begs the question, what is the intent of the console? To be online always or to play games?

My BIG worry is that with it being always on, your behavior is always monitored. Its datamining galore. And with a ps eye (and I heard kinect MUST be connected to 720 to work) you have the all seeing eye (pun intended) watching you. Its like that Verizon patent that wants to have cameras on their customers to watch their responses all under the guise of tailoring their marketing. Marketing is the trojan horse for surveillance. If you doubt this I suggest you Google "finspy" and the CIA's recent purchase of $600,000,000 of cloud storage from Amazon. Also, look up the gov'ts new collection of ALL your financial data. (The Young Turks has coverage on these.) Hackers already access many computers webcams and microphones without people realizing it. Think about it. If your webcam or mike are connected (mic always is btw), anyone can eavesdrop and record what is within view or earshot. Especially with mobile devices! So, don't make out with your significant other in front of these things. :) Hello 1984!

I really HATE how these big city companies just assume that people will always have internet. I live in a relatively rural area. We are only just now getting good DSL into the rural areas, and it's still limited in some more remote regions. It also gets expensive. The job situation is pretty much crap in my area, and I still encounter lots of people who exclusively play offline, because they only have dial up or no internet at all. The Gamestop I work at is across the street from a Walmart, and we also get truckers here too. There are laws that limit the max hours they can drive, and they sometimes find themselves legally bound to the parking lots for entire weekends. I've meet several with game consoles and TVs in their sleeper... You think they have internet? No! Even my own mother has a PS3, but no internet.

I'd love to drag the CEOs of these "always on connection" supporting companies out to the sticks and force them to live there for a month...

This doesn't sound like console ownership, it sounds like people will be licensing (not owning) a console from MS. They will licence it to you for as long as they decide to provide the back-end server connection.

I don't like that idea at all would that give everyone more reason to hack into the system? also would that put more strain on the machine's componenets which then lessening the life span of the console?